A federal judge has ordered an insurer to show why he should refrain from rejecting the insurer's case against an NCAA football conference on the availability of insurance for brain-stroke trials. In May, the Great American Assurance Company filed a complaint against the Conference United States, which tried to explain that it did not have to defend or replace the conference against a trial conducted by a former football player. In the underlying trial, the former player claimed that he suffered from neurodegenerative disorders and diseases, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy ("CTE"), Alzheimer's disease, memory loss, mood swings, headaches and anxiety caused by repeated brain damage to the University of Louisville. In the insurance action, Great American argues that a limited event coverage report added to the conference US policy did not include football as a covered event and therefore the policy does not provide coverage for "bodily injury" arising from football.
The Federal Rules require a plaintiff to serve the defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint. If the plaintiff fails to do so, the judge must reject the action or decide that the plaintiff should defend the defendant within a certain time. However, if the plaintiff can show good reason for a delay in service, the judge must extend the time for service for a suitable period. Here, the judge noticed the fish, the senior US district director of the northern district of Texas, that more than 90 days had passed since the Great American first filed his complaint against the United States conference. As a result, he gave Great American to this Friday, August 25, to show cause, in writing, why he should keep his trial against the Conference USA on his docket. If Great American doesn't play by the rules, it can come sideways ̵
You can read the entire order from the judge here.
Update: Yesterday, Great American submitted an answer to judge the fish order order stating that the parties are in the process of negotiating a provision that would resolve this dispute and request a 30-day extension. It seems that this case can lead to overtime.
You can read the Great American answer here.